Do You Want a FAITHFUL Movie Adaptation or Not?

HAIRSPRAY, the movie,appears to be a hit! Good news, too - since it's very faithful to the Broadway musical. The cast actually breaks out in song! "Good Morning, Baltimore" bolts off the screen with delight as if to say "This is a musical - deal with it".
Recently, movie adaptations have tip-toed around the fact that they are based on musicals. The film versions of DREAMGIRLS and (yes) CHICAGO changed their scripts to accomidate extra stage performances, dreams and all kinds of rediculousness so that the singing by the characters would not look so "theatrical". Apparently it worked, because those two films were hits. CHICAGO even won "Best Picture" at the Oscar's that year.
Faithful adaptations, such as The Phantom of the Opera and Rent, never caught on at the box-office, and were universally panned by critics. The "operatic" style of both were were too "weird" for movie audiences (Evita was not a hit, either).
For me, the only slight problem with RENT and PHANTOM, is that a couple of times they stop for their "dialogue moments", keeping them from being an almost exact replica of their stage versions. I loved both of them on stage, and I felt the same excitement when I saw them at the movies! I have friends who love BOTH of the movies, though they've never seen the stage versions. They don't know (or care) that the RENT characters are a little older than they were on stage, and they love the "intimacy" (which is missing on stage) of the romance (all be it simply implicated) between Christine and the Phantom. They (we) think the voices are all just fine!
So which do you prefer? If you hated RENT and PHANTOM... then you must be hoping that more musical adaptations take the "we're not a musical" stance. But you love HAIRSPRAY, right? To me watching the movie versions of RENT, PHANTOM and HAIRSPRAY are like being on the front row at the theatre. They're faithful... and I can see the expressions, the joy, and the sorrows right up close. Movies like DREAMGIRLS and CHICAGO have re-formatted their film versions to be something where all the musical numbers take place on a stage somewhere (or in someone's fantasy/dream). That's being chicken! You know what I think? If you don't like musicals... go see something else! Even The Fantasticks movie sat on the shelves all those years. Why? Because it was a faithful adaptation. If you've never seen it, check it out - it's wonderful.

wonderfulwizard said it perfectly. Make it a good MOVIE.

---

Okay, the least of the problems with THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, RENT, and THE PRODUCERS is that the characters burst out in song and dance without any "device" a la CHICAGO.
The problem with those films is that they're...well...terrible movies. Their flaws have been discussed multiple times, RENT suffers from some terrible acting (Adam Pascal), awkward transition into the songs ("One Song Glory," "Another Day"), and lackluster musical sequences ("Out Tonight"--which was only saved by Rosario Dawson's impeccable performance). PHANTOM was just one of the most boring movies I've ever seen, never mind the fact that Christine not only had no voice but was as bland as can be. And what wasn't wrong with THE PRODUCERS?
It wasn't that they were faithful to the script or not, it was that they were badly done. There's a difference between faithful to the script and bursting out into song.
HAIRSPRAY works as a film both because Shankman wasn't afraid to make a musical but because he wasn't afraid to make a movie out of a musical. He knew how to incorporate the songs without it seeming odd, he got top-notch actors (with some exceptions), a leading lady that rocked her scenes, and even if I didn't go ga-ga over the movie, he had much better material to work with than RENT, PHANTOM, or THE PRODUCERS.
I particularly loved CHICAGO and DREAMGIRLS over all the films listed above. Not because they used "devices" but because they were great FILMS, they weren't a sad shadow of the theater version.

---

That's true.

And didn't Fosse make Cabaret the way he did because he couldn't find a good way to film the subplot?

---

I prefer good over anything else.

Well said, Kringas.

---

I have never seen Rent all the way through, but of what I did see, I just really disliked the pacing, i think. I felt like there was no energy or excitement. I mean, I know it's no Hairspray, but even Out Tonight and Tango: Maureen were really awkwardly subdued to me.

Updated On: 8/10/07 at 10:38 PM

I would much rather see a film director's cinematic interpretation of the material (Chicago) rather than see the same exact scenes from the show on screen (The Producers).

Directors of movie musicals are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place because there are always going to be people who want a direct-scene-by-scene film version of the musical, but if they do that then there will be people who will say that they should have taken liberties with the material and put their own spin on it.

Take the example of Sweeney Todd. In the other thread, there were people who seemed to be surprised by Mrs. Lovett's costume in the picture. Her costume was probably not going to be similar to the one worn by Angela Lansbury in the original Broadway production because it is a film adaptation of the musical and not a film version of the musical.

---

Updated On: 8/10/07 at 10:53 PM

The root of the problem is the directors...
Both Chris Columbus (RENT) and Joel Schumacher (PHANTOM) ARE NOT theatre people and weren't equipped to transfer these shows into a new medium.

Adam Shankman (HAIRSPRAY) and Rob Marshall (CHICAGO)have backgrounds in both film and theatre and knew what do to in with film to broaden these shows beyond the procenium.

Obviously there are 2 exceptions...

Good:
Bill Condon (DREAMGIRLS) who doesn't have a huge background in theatre, but I think he has a profound love for it that it compensates for a lack of background...and he also worked on Chicago.

Bad:
Susan Stroman (THE PRODUCERS) has a backgound in just theatre. Her only film experience is largely choreography and she directed Contact for TV (but that was a filmed performance of the stage show).

So let me recap...background in both stage and film, good...background in both one and not the other...a crapshoot.

I don't really think that Dreamgirls was ashamed to be a musical. They kept some of the "dialogue" songs. I will admit that the transitions sucked monkeys, though.

---

The message meant to be conveyed by the author of the text is most important. So if making sacrifices in order for the general population to understand and appreciate that message better, then more power to you.

---

I hate the original libretto of Cabaret...at least regarding the Fraulein Schneider subplot. It was re-worked so much better for the revival (an altogether superior libretto).

Wickedfan, I am not sure what you mean. The Schneider/Schultz script is almost word for word the same (aside from deleting "Meeskite" in the revival.) It is the Sally-Cliff scenes that have been re-written.

As for failthful film adaptations, in the 30s and 40s there were practically none. ANNIE GET YOUR GUN was fairly faithful. R&H saw to it that the films of their shows were reasonably faithful. But a faithful film does not necessarily mean a great film. MY FAIR LADY is faithful (and carefully done) but rather stodgy.

---

"Now they have to disguise it as the characters performing on stage or something. I think what worked for HAIRSPRAY was they went balls out and just let the characters sing. Unlike RENT, which somehow turned each musical sequence into a music video".

But the STAGE version of RENT is all "musical sequences" - It's nothing but music (just like Phantom, Evita, Miss Saigon, Sunset Boulevard, etc). Balls OUT are films like RENT & PHANTOM where they (for the most part) kept the entire musical score intact. You're certainly welcome to your opinion... just makes me a little sad sometimes. PHANTOM (20 years) and RENT (11) (Is that right?) have to suffer the whole "miscarriage" that their movie versions were "terrible". I LOVED BOTH! They were faithful to their origins; moving, touching and actually ABOUT something for a change.
I had a dream about 2 months before RENT came out at the movie theatres. I thought that it would be the biggest movie version of a Broadway play EVER! I thought - it's going to appeal to so many age groups... it's going to show that young people are thoughtful, intuitive... and caring. This was, essentially, their chance to show what a musical movie of THEIR generation was about... and had to say. I thought it was going to change thoughts about gays, transgenders... and most importantly create a statement about the pity of AIDS... and how we should all understand it's importance. It DIDN'T. I think it still creates a wave on Broadway, though. RENT would not still BE on Broadway if it weren't for young people. They "drag" their friends and parents - then THOSE people tell others how great it was. RENT is a true PHENOMENON. I think that people who watch the movie feel the same way. It's actually ABOUT something, for a change.